State ex rel. Pryor v. Werren

2017 Ohio 7668

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 18, 2017
• Docket: 17 CA 00029
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Pryor v. Werren, 2017-Ohio-7668.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. JUDGES: NC LaFONSE PRYOR Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Relator Hon. Earle E. Wise, J.

-vs-

JUDGE CURT WERREN, CANTON Case No. 2017 CA 00029 MUNICIPAL COURT, et al.

Respondents OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Quo Warranto

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 18, 2017

APPEARANCES:

For Relator For Respondents

NC LaFONSE PRYOR JOHN D. FERRERO PRO SE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY STARK COUNTY JAIL RONALD MARK CALDWELL 4500 Atlantic Boulevard, NE ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR Canton, Ohio 44705 110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510 Canton, Ohio 44702 Stark County, Case No. 2017 CA 00029 2

Wise, John, J.

{¶1} Petitioner, NC LaFonse Pryor, has filed a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto

against Respondents Judges Curt Werren and Taryn L. Heath. Respondents have filed

a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

{¶2} Petitioner generally argues Respondents lack jurisdiction over his case due

to an excessive bond and violation of various constitutional rights.

{¶3} For a writ of quo warranto to issue, “a relator must establish (1) that the

office is being unlawfully held and exercised by respondent, and (2) that relator is entitled

to the office.” State ex rel. Paluf v. Feneli (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 138, 141, 630 N.E.2d

708.

{¶4} The Ohio Supreme Court has held, “‘[A]n action in quo warranto may be

brought by an individual as a private citizen only when he personally is claiming title to a

public office.’ ” State ex rel. Coyne v. Todia (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 232, 238, 543 N.E.2d

1271, quoting State ex rel. Annable v. Stokes (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 32, 32-33, 53 O.O.2d

18, 262 N.E.2d 863.

{¶5} “[D]ismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted is appropriate if the complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot

prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint. State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Ingraham (1999),

87 Ohio St.3d 230, 231, 718 N.E.2d 1285, 1287.” State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen

(2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 316, 725 N.E.2d 663, 667. Stark County, Case No. 2017 CA 00029 3

{¶6} Petitioner does not aver in his Petition that he is entitled to the offices held

by Respondents. For this reason, we find the petition lacks merit and dismiss the petition

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

By: Wise, John, J.

Gwin, P. J., and

Wise, Earle, Jr., J., concur.

JWW/d 0830